Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What it takes to stand up to authority

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 80 posts

Re: What it takes to stand up to authority

#71

Post by jokoon »

AmericanChopper wrote: post #59
jokoon wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What kind of evidence? How do you define success? Society and civilization are built around discipline and order, but it doesn't mean you require those qualities to have success. The role of school is to teach people to fit into a civilized world. It is not oppressive, it's not always conditioning, but it's a mean to give people a chance to live a comfortable life inside the frame of civilization. Success is a differ…

>What kind of evidence? How do you define success? Scientific evidence, and in every possibly way you could define success. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3498890/ >This article investigates how personality and cognitive ability relate to measures of objective success (income and wealth) and subjective success (life satisfaction, positive affect, and lack of negative affect) in a representative sample o…

I have a hard time with psychology as a science, it was showed many studies were not reproducible. I like psychology, but studying success and finding that discipline=success really seems like using some layman vocabulary to tell people the source of why they're unsuccessful in life, which reminds me of motivational speaking, which I despise with passion. Diagnosing people with lack of discipline is more a questions of morals, ideology of life and philosophy than science. It's not something you can do or do with results, and often it will just be about motivational speaking, which is often scamming.

Conscientious people also often are conformists, which to me is not a good thing.

"Big Five personality traits" and the HEXACO models seems like pseudo science to me, because I don't think you can precisely define those things with a study of behavior, and come with relevant and applicable notions of those metrics.

We are in an age of the study of AI, and psychology sounds like it's the alchemy of the study of the brain. It might work in some places, but I don't think we can rely on it. Worse, I hardly think you can use psychology in a thoughtful process of helping people without sounding like a madman.

Re: What it takes to stand up to authority

#72

Post by dsego »

projektir wrote: post #56
malmsteen wrote: post #18

I've never understood how the classic interpretation of milgram that "people can become monster under authority" were remotely relevant. "hurting other people" is just a natural tendency inside at least a large proportion if not all humans. That's why we've had so many wars in the history, bullys at school and abuse in generally ANY UNREGULATED ENVIRONEMENT (chrisitan schools in the 50s in france for example, prisons…

Claiming that people love war seems like a pretty dangerous statement to me without some very solid study. There's a lot going on there, most notably, trauma. People who went to war are not necessarily the people who come back.

Why is it dangerous? You explain nothing.

Re: What it takes to stand up to authority

#73

Post by maxerickson »

yontherubicon wrote: post #68
albutr wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By promoting hard-hitting contact sports to youth, and issuing equipment that doesn't do a good job at protecting the head? Even considering the underreporting with young, high school athletes, a large number of young football players in the US have suffered concussions[1] at a very young age when their brains are developing, and that's with equipment that we can reasonably assume is designed with safety in mind. If…

TBH, we're far better at reducing executive function and impulse control simply by widespread drug usage, pornography usage and (IMHO) highly rewarding, low-attention media, esp social meda, youtube, and video games. All of those are FAR more widespread than playing football, and in aggregate, are far more likely to render one subservient.

Wake up sheeple!

Re: What it takes to stand up to authority

#74

Post by dang »

maxerickson wrote: post #73
yontherubicon wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TBH, we're far better at reducing executive function and impulse control simply by widespread drug usage, pornography usage and (IMHO) highly rewarding, low-attention media, esp social meda, youtube, and video games. All of those are FAR more widespread than playing football, and in aggregate, are far more likely to render one subservient.

Wake up sheeple!

Not here please.

Re: What it takes to stand up to authority

#76

Post by pdimitar »

> Being able to stand up to authority doesn’t hinge on bravery or courage, confidence or stubbornness. The brain processes and regions essential for rejecting ideas from authority figures are starting to be revealed.

Nonsense. Sure everything stems from chemical processes in our bodies, including the brain -- of course. But they breed the bravery, courage, confidence and stubbornness. I don't see why we must contrast these two things. They have a one-directional causation link between them.

Re: What it takes to stand up to authority

#77

Post by dang »

maxerickson wrote: post #75
dang wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not here please.

Okay, but I think it probably isn't a good outcome where a serious comment saying the same thing is more welcome than the ironic one.

I don't see that it said the same thing. This is an opportunity to practice the site guideline that asks you to respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, instead of a weaker one that's more easily dismissed.

Re: What it takes to stand up to authority

#78

Post by projektir »

dsego wrote: post #72
projektir wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Claiming that people love war seems like a pretty dangerous statement to me without some very solid study. There's a lot going on there, most notably, trauma. People who went to war are not necessarily the people who come back.

Why is it dangerous? You explain nothing.

Wait, I really have to explain why an incorrect gender-based generalization could be dangerous? How about the conclusions the person I'm responding to arrived at.

It's one thing to describe the experiences of soldiers returning from Vietnam, because that is valuable information. It's another to interpret it and make conclusions when there are 50 other valid explanations.

"People/men like war/aggression/risk" is honestly not a new concept, and it's seems pretty correct on the surface, especially when you cut out the whole part of your comrade slowly dying due to a stray shell. This is the glorification of war that books like Catch-22 and Slaughterhouse Five were written against.

Most incorrect claims are dangerous, and the reasons are not always all enumerable since you often can't see the problem when you think a false thing is true. I.e., if you already think women are hysterical, treating them as hysterical doesn't seem like an issue because, well, they're hysterical.

Re: What it takes to stand up to authority

#79

Post by LinuxBender »

mockingbirdy wrote: post #48
ErikAugust wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah - my intuition is there is a correlation, but really I’d love to see any sort of research that relates to this.

Very difficult to measure IMO - a causality analysis requires more control over the variables. It's too easy to make measurement errors in social psychology studies. Who would be willing to eat fast-food and put themselves on a bad diet to test if their ability to resist authority deteriorates? The sampling bias alone would be too big and skews the whole result. And people learn: Maybe their behavior in authority tes…

I believe it is already being done at full scale. :-)

Most people are already eating the junk full time. Now we just need to get a big swath of them off of it and measure the changes.

Re: What it takes to stand up to authority

#80

Post by malmsteen »

projektir wrote: post #78
dsego wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it dangerous? You explain nothing.

Wait, I really have to explain why an incorrect gender-based generalization could be dangerous? How about the conclusions the person I'm responding to arrived at. It's one thing to describe the experiences of soldiers returning from Vietnam, because that is valuable information. It's another to interpret it and make conclusions when there are 50 other valid explanations. "People/men like war/aggression/risk" is hones…

Late answer: your answer is quite level-headed I think.

I would say that first that I never said anything about gender-specific, or if i did it was a mistake.. My point is that every human (men or women) has a potential of violence that can be unleashed in many situations. This potential is the kind of thing that look "unnatural" "scary" or "bad" when you see it and don't feel it but feel naturalyou experience it.

Granted there's not many data / source in my answer. My point is just that I feel a bit weird when I see a lot of articles like this who talk about violence being an "unnatural" tendency of the humans when I think it is a very natural tendency (which we constantly try to make disappear in our peaceful societies, which is why it might look unnatural nowadays.).

Post reply on HN